Files.com MCP Server

Official

by Files-com

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

List Bundle Recipient

List_Bundle_Recipient

Read-only

Retrieve recipients of a share link bundle by providing its bundle ID.

Instructions

List Share Link Recipients

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "List_Bundle_Recipient"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bundle_id`	No	List recipients for the bundle with this ID.
`fields`	No	Optional list of attribute names to include as columns in the response table. When omitted, a sensible default set is used. Useful for narrowing wide entities or surfacing fields not in the default.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.65Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., whether it returns all recipients or paginated results, or any authorization requirements). With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short (4 words) but front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it could be more informative without being verbose; one additional sentence about usage would improve it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that the tool has only 2 parameters and an output schema exists (not shown but noted), the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to explain what a 'Share Link Recipient' is or what the output contains, relying on the user to infer from the name.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema itself includes descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List Share Link Recipients' clearly indicates the action (list) and the resource (share link recipients). It distinguishes from general list tools like List_Bundle, but not from siblings like List_Bundle_Download or List_Bundle_Notification that also list bundle-related entities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as List_Bundle or List_Bundle_Download. No context about prerequisites (e.g., bundle must have existing recipients) or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server